Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

Full Version: Is armor a good force multiplier?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Armor
Strength: Long range, accurate, powerful firepower
Weakness: Extremely vulnerable to AT, very exposed in the open, difficult to repair w/ crewmen, dies quickly

Infantry
Strength: Maneuverable, easy to find cover even in the open, easy to heal
Weakness: Low range weak firepower, easily suppressed



This is a simple comparison of armor(tanks, apc..) and infantry in combat situations. Looking at the differences on a chart they compliment their weaknesses and strengths very well, in theory, but i wonder if this is the case in a real situation. Ill just make some inferences from my observations and compare that with the theoretical model of combined arms.


Armored vehicles are very weak to AT fire and more often that not are the first asset go KIA because of a lack of cover to safely fire. This usually ends up in the squad leader sending the vehicle to take a very safe position further back from the fight where its effective firepower becomes very limited and it cannot support the infantry adequately.


On the assault, infantry are usually sent in in front of the armor and get suppressed and then pinned down. Without the accuracy and ranged firepower to retaliate effectively, the fight will drag on until casualties on both sides gradually increase and one side is defeated. The Armor if any, will be behind a hill or in a position unable to assist without getting blown up by dead aim AI Anti-Tank weapons. It is then in a problem where it were to move closer and support the infantry from a strong position in the open the result would be a very quick death. Also, it is not as easy to take liberties with armor as it with infantry for things like, popping around a corner to recon an area or to make a quick series of shots because of the nature of 1shotdeath restricting options even more. In the end, vehicles are very much immobile when it comes to positioning and not well suited for finding and using cover.


The goal then is to devise a practical universal model for combined arms combat ON THE ASSAULT where we can utilize the strengths of vehicles and infantry to defeat a larger armada/force of AI infantry and armor. Maybe armor should be used as a flanking element instead of support. Thoughts? Ideas?
TBH, the main weakness of armour is that none of us knows very well how to handle it. A tank usually doesn't explode because it never gets hit in the first place. A good tank crew will make sure that the vehicle survives.

The problem is that, more than often, we play with a skeleton armour crew. I do firmly believe that you need all the positions (not the loader in Arma obviously) in a tank - gunner, driver, and commander.

The commander is very important, both for situational awareness as well as for the tank's safety. The smoke screen can only be triggered by the commander, WHILE in the commander position.

The driver needs to know about positioning. Obviously if you drive on top of a hill it is easy to engage you. A good driver will know how far he can go.

Just like helicopters, tank driver requires a lot of coordination, and there is a reason tank crews usually stay in the same tank all the time.

One of the major problems I always see when in a tank with three men is lack of coordination, discipline, and communication.

Coordination: For the driver with his extremely limited view, saying "Go to that waypoint" is not enough. The commander must say "turn heading xxx and go forward", otherwise it doesn't work. "Follow that tank" works mostly, but even holding a formation is something that the driver will likely not manage without input from the commander.
Likewise, the gunner needs to be told about target. Usually, that is the call of the commander to make. If the commander says "Engage SPAA at 80 degrees", unless there is something pointing a barrel directly at you, you follow the commander's order. Some gunners however, have the same trouble following that order has some infantrymen have to follow the order "disengage".
Finally, the commander needs to get input from the other stations.

Discipline: If the commander says "observe this position", then the gunner observes this position. Simple commands like "full turn right" to the driver require the driver to make the math in his head and do the turn, and he needs to realize that a full turn right is 90 degrees.

Communication: We have some members that are obviously more talkative than others. That's a fact, and nothing changes that. However, if you are the quiet type, don't go for the tank, or go for something like the driver that usually doesn't give a lot of feedback. But when I play in a tank and my gunner doesn't say anything when he sees a target, that spells instant disaster.

So bottom line is, we're not using tanks effectively because we don't know how.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Alwarren. I think you are right, tanks are just not handled well, 3 different entities functioning as a single body is not easy. Feedback and communication that is concise and at the same time PRECISE is paramount for the tank unit to serve its purpose which is not easy at all imo.
Above is excellent analysis by Alwarren, and I am guilty as charged to some mentioned issues.

Example from last two coop nights missions. In Watchmens tank mission co-operation between gunner-driver was excellent (thanks again Manuel), and we had tons of fun. However, extra slot as commander would have really helped. Gunner can focus/zoon on one spot at a time and he is blind to threats from side sectors, while commander is able to constantly scan for other threats and prioritize targets.

Another example is the BTR-70 mission of doom where SPhoenix was driver and I was gunner. I had huge difficulties in estimating dimensions of vehicle and getting it properly aligned to hull down position. This wasn't Sphoenix's fault, it was my fault as I wasn't able to direct and communicate my intention clearly. Limitations like this are part of the challenge and fun, but it really takes a lot of practice.

Smoke screen can also be triggered by gunner/driver in some RHS vehicles, and it is vastly underused asset. I am not sure how it is implemented in game, but it should at least block LOS for RPG gunners. Some types of smokes are also somewhat effective against Thermal targeting (Javs, Titans, Metis), but my hunch is it isn't implemented in Arma.

I personally think non-guided AT-rockets under AI are tad too overpower. AI never has battle stress, estimate distance wrong, and it rarely misses even a moving target at extremely long range. Hitting a moving tank with light non-guided rpg is quite difficult at best, and even with a hit kill probability isn't 100%.  I understand AI coding is a form of witchcraft on its own, but I would prefer misses now and then.

For curiosity, below is RL example how not to use tanks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_...80%9395%29
(11-16-2015, 07:36 PM)Stagwine link Wrote: [ -> ]Above is excellent analysis by Alwarren, and I am guilty as charged to some mentioned issues.

Thanks Smile
We all are guilty to some degree. We rarely play tank missions, and rarely with the same three people, so there is little in terms of common experience that can help.

Quote:Example from last two coop nights missions. In Watchmens tank mission co-operation between gunner-driver was excellent (thanks again Manuel), and we had tons of fun. However, extra slot as commander would have really helped. Gunner can focus/zoon on one spot at a time and he is blind to threats from side sectors, while commander is able to constantly scan for other threats and prioritize targets.

Same here, Archer and myself did well, but two times a missile came straight at us and only Archers immediate reaction to my command saved us. And at the end, with a commander, we would have spotted the tank.

I'd like to point out this video by the Big D.

I appreciate that we consider crewmen teamwork, it is important no doubt but i don't think this encompasses the whole picture. There will always be limitations that even a battle worn tank crew cannot overcome, like generally finding it harder to use cover than soldiers and weakness to tank explosives. What i am hoping for is to come up with some strategies or tactics how ground vehicles can better compliment the infantry forces and well...be better force multipliers.


Lets try some brain storming, i have some ideas but you guys may not find them very good so please feel free to disagree with me and suggest better ones.


Vehicle elevation and distance. To make full use of tank weapons and still be in a safe position we have to account for distance and perspective. A tank on an elevated point far away should be able to use its weapons effectively and still be safe from infantry AT. However only explosives will be useful at that range, machine gun bullets will have insufficient kinetic energy to be effective.


Assault is easier than support. Lets assume we have a poorly functioning tank crew, instead of supporting the infantry, attacking the enemy directly from a different direction ishould be an easier task. A weak crew would have a better effect flanking the enemy because attention is drawn away allowing it to attack at a different angle. The wheels or treads allow the vehicle to move much faster and can attack and retreat repeatedly, re-positioning each time.


If you look at some military manuals they have formations regarding tanks and rifleman platoons. A usual pattern is a wedge shape formation with the tank at the front and infantry at the side. The infantry move behind the tank when taking oncoming fire. Not sure this will be useful at all in Arma. I dont have years of Arma experience under my belt so i cant comment what infantry could do other than find cover and shoot.
I think the issue with tanks is the AI is like the terminator against them, regardless of the launcher they have or who the tank crew is. They insta-lock from like <500m. Yous mention popping smoke but the rocket hits before you can even transmit to pop smoke. Sometimes the driver might see the rocket coming and has 1-2 seconds to move but even that fails mostly.

It's simply who sees who first. If the enemy AT spots tank first, more or less GG from 1 rocket.

The key in my opinion is to try eliminate enemy AT gunners (thought this obviously has the issue of fighting numerous AI) , possibly from a distance, then make full use of the tank.

I think think that AI vs human tanks, is a game issue ('arma feature') as a whole, not really something you can realistically solve other than to keep tank 700m away, thermal scanning everywhere which is really boring or not giving AI lock on launchers which breaks the point of the game.

Even if we knew how to use tank to perfection and became like the 'Fury' movie, I would put my money on the AI destroying it majority of time.
(11-17-2015, 05:25 PM)Watchmen link Wrote: [ -> ]There will always be limitations that even a battle worn tank crew cannot overcome, like generally finding it harder to use cover than soldiers and weakness to tank explosives.

Yes, but that doesn't change what I said - the key is effective use. Of course you will die with your tank if you go in on a wall of AT weapons facing you. Flank it and take it from the side. The crew is the most important factor by far in the whole equation. I cannot stress this enough.

The major issue I see with Arma in particular is not so much the effectiveness of AI AT soldiers, but the sheer amount of firepower they carry around.

A titan-class missile would be equivalent to a Javelin. The original Titan (aka the Raffael Mini-Spike) is not an anti-tank weapon, it's an anti-personal weapon. The warhead is way too small to be an effective anti-tank missile. A Javelin team usually carries two missiles. In Arma, they carry five or more (gunner and assistant).

The amount of ordnance that an Arma solider can carry is unrealistic. In my Army time I lugged around a Carl Gustav on my back (MAAWS for the US), and my buddy was carrying the ammo - two shots. The CG weights almost 18 kilograms loaded.

Same with anti-tank mines. The mine in Arma 3 weights an equivalent of 3-4 kg. A real M15 anti-tank mine weights 14 kg.

So I say if you want to make things realistic, reduce the number of missiles and the number of AT soliders.
(11-18-2015, 01:26 AM)Alwarren link Wrote: [ -> ]So I say if you want to make things realistic, reduce the number of missiles and the number of AT soliders.
Or, give the AI opponent many RPG-7 rockets (not the 7V type or above). These don't inflict much damage so the tank crew life expectancy increases, but still the excitement factor remains high with many RPG flying overhead.
(11-17-2015, 11:52 PM)Den link Wrote: [ -> ]I think the issue with tanks is the AI is like the terminator against them, regardless of the launcher they have or who the tank crew is. They insta-lock from like <500m. Yous mention popping smoke but the rocket hits before you can even transmit to pop smoke. Sometimes the driver might see the rocket coming and has 1-2 seconds to move but even that fails mostly.

It's simply who sees who first. If the enemy AT spots tank first, more or less GG from 1 rocket.

The key in my opinion is to try eliminate enemy AT gunners (thought this obviously has the issue of fighting numerous AI) , possibly from a distance, then make full use of the tank.

I think think that AI vs human tanks, is a game issue ('arma feature') as a whole, not really something you can realistically solve other than to keep tank 700m away, thermal scanning everywhere which is really boring or not giving AI lock on launchers which breaks the point of the game.

Even if we knew how to use tank to perfection and became like the 'Fury' movie, I would put my money on the AI destroying it majority of time.
The only tangible defense tactics i can think of are like you say, keeping a distance and using cover because human skill can only accomplish so much. Smoke does not seem to do much when you factor in the AI reaction time against human reaction time. Then as Alwarren said, the plethora of AT ammunition that infantry can carry give tanks barely a chance of staying alive.


Ai behavior is one of the major reasons why armor in Arma is not as effective as it should be like in real life. This i think is a failure in creating a military simulation that balances vehicle combat.
Guys, the AI acts reasonably against Tanks, especially with ASR AI. They miss a lot with RPG or any unguided rockets, but their chances to hit with a guided missile is high. Just like it is for humans. They are also sensitive to target movement, and will have trouble hitting a target moving across with an unguided rocket, but it will be easy for them if the target is moving towards them. All this "AI is too accurate" is not at all true anymore, and can be considered a myth that relies on the past.
(11-18-2015, 10:43 AM)Variable link Wrote: [ -> ]Guys, the AI acts reasonably against Tanks, especially with ASR AI. They miss a lot with RPG or any unguided rockets, but their chances to hit with a guided missile is high. Just like it is for humans. They are also sensitive to target movement, and will have trouble hitting a target moving across with an unguided rocket, but it will be easy for them if the target is moving towards them. All this "AI is too accurate" is not at all true anymore, and can be considered a myth that relies on the past.

They even miss with guided rockets sometimes. In that one mission with Archer and me in the tank, two titans missed us, probably due to range and our movement.
I thought this a lot as I am making a tank mission for winter campaign and did bit of testing about AI accuracy. Long post, but might be useful for mission makers. 

Conditions:

Vanilla AI. Regular difficulty. Skill slider standard. Daylight. No wind. Salt plateau, perfect LOS.

RHS engagement range (RPG-7): 250m.
Vanilla CSAT engagement range (RPG-42) = 500-600m.

Results below with CSAT AT gunner with standard CSAT RPG. Please note that these are rudimentary results with around 20 test runs, and no way comprehensive statistical analysis. Also we use AI server sidemod, which likely has impact to results.

Hit probability. Static tank:

No AT-gunner fatigue (0): almost 100%. Range had no effect, nor did skill. AI took perfect shots up to 600m, which seems to be max engagement range under test parameters. 
AT gunner fatigue max (1): Considerable effect. Lots of misses (7 out 10 shots missed!)
AT gunner suppression max (1): Considerable effect. Several misses (4 out 10 shots missed!)

Hit probability. Moving tank:

Moving tank. Distances 400-500m. No fatigue / supp. Tank speed "LIMITED" (< 30kmh): around 50-70%
Moving tank. Distances 400-500m. No fatigue / supp. Tank speed "NORMAL" (~60kmh): Slightly less than above. AI also had difficulties taking a shot when range was ~500m. It was kneeling, aiming the target tank and following it with RPG, but it didn't fire in some cases. 

When distance to tank was ~300m or so, hit probability was increased which makes sense.

When fatigue / suppression was increased, hit probability got drastic decrease. In some cases only 1-2 rounds of 10 fired hit the moving target tank.

Also, when target tanks combat/danger AI kicked it and it started to make course/speed adjustments, AI had considerably more difficulties hitting it.

Summary:

Variable was right. AT-gunner AI has improved a lot, and in current state in vanilla is pretty good! Fatigue AND suppression causes noticeable differences in AI accuracy, although suppression values will rapidly decrease if AI is not really fired upon.

Also if you make missions for RHS, note that AI engagement range with RPG-7 was around 250m or so which is realistic. RPG-7 isn't very accurate. 

Tactical considerations:

If your tank is still and AT gunner isnt suppressed or tired: You're pretty much toast. Hit the pedal if tank still moves.

If you survive the first hit: Make course/speed adjustments. Even small ones will throw AI lead off, and helps your escape chances. Use smoke screen.

Test it yourself:

VERY rudimentary test mission is included. Use radio triggers 0-0-2 to 0-0-5 to start test. Others will adjust test parameters.

Unzip attachment. Move folder as it is to files/Arma 3/profilename/missions. In Main menu, go to editor. Choose Altis. Load mission > tankTest. Choose preview.
Thanks for the analysis Stag. The rocket accuracy and hit chances of AI on the server should be even worse given these three factors:
1. We use lower accuracy than the one dictated by the regular difficulty used on Stag's test.
2. ASR AI.
3. TPWCAS, which forces the AI to go prone under suppressive fire, and thus preventing them to use their launchers.